American Solar Energy Society

How AI Will Revolutionize the Way We Use Electricity

Sunshine Urbaniak — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 15:23:32 +0000

The short-term load demands that will be placed on the electrical grid over the next four years will be unprecedented. After several decades of near zero load demand growth, the system is about to see an energy shock akin to the oil crisis of the 1970s.

Unprecedented Load Demand Growth

In combination, the added load demands on the nation’s grid from the following sources may well see an over 40% growth by 2030.

Data centers (+12% – S&P Global Research¹)
Crypto-currency mining (+3% – Carnegie Mellon University²)
Electric vehicles (+9% – NREL³)
Shifts towards the electrification of heating and industry (+8% – International Energy Agency⁴)
Climate change (+10% – IEA⁵)

Assuming these projections are accurate, the US grid would have to add about 126 GW of new generating capacity each year for the next four years. Current trends would indicate that it will not even come close to meeting those numbers. The most ever added to the grid in a single year occurred in 2002 when nearly 60 GW of new generation came online. And permitting already in place for 2026 indicates that at best the grid will see the addition of 40 GW of solar, 20 GW of battery storage and 10 GW of new wind generation (70 GW total).⁶

Projections from various studies indicate the US grid may experience over 40% in load demand over the next four years. © Firefly generated

In sum, new generation capacity can only meet a fraction of the anticipated load demand growth. So where will this new power come from?

It is clear that the adoption of AI is part of the problem (see chart above – data centers), but perhaps it can also be part of the solution. Integrating artificial intelligence into the management of energy consumption and distribution of homes, businesses, and even the grid itself may go a long way towards addressing these shortfalls.

The Grid has a lot of Headroom

While total load demand is important, from the grid’s perspective it is even more important when the demand occurs. The electric grid is designed to meet peak demand, the few hours in a year when the most electricity is used, not average load demand. In other words, build for the worst and hope for the best.

As a result, there is extra generating capacity built into the design – but only if it can be used effectively. AI may be just the tool required to assist in making that happen.

In 2026 the capacity utilization for U.S. electric power generation, transmission, and distribution sits at about 72%.⁷ This means that on average, the grid operates at about 72% of its maximum sustainable capacity. This is an historically low percentage (see chart to the right), meaning there is a tremendous amount of potential generating capacity that could be unlocked with the right management tools.

The grid currently has about 1,353 GW (1.35 terawatts) of generating capacity. Unlocking this capacity potential is the equivalent of building an additional 380 GW of new power generation.

Much of the additional capacity headroom is the result of the grid’s greater reliance on renewable energy such as wind and solar. Given the variability of these resources, a larger cushion has been required to ensure grid resilience. But the addition of batteries and the integration of demand response tools may allow operators to unlock that capacity while still maintaining a resilient grid.

Grid Demand Management

Utilities can employ a combination of technologies, software, and management strategies designed to better balance electrical supply with demand. These can be especially useful in reducing peak load demand. The most direct way of lowering peak energy demand is to deal directly with the sources of that demand. This may involve reducing loads through predictive heating/cooling systems that monitor weather forecasts and minimize heating and cooling when the space is unoccupied — but then pre-cool or pre-heat living spaces just prior to when people return. AI can also be instrumental in monitoring and controlling adaptive lighting and reducing the need for phantom loads.

The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that 20-60% of all energy used in the average US home is wasted.⁸ Minimizing even a fraction of this waste can go a long way towards bridging the looming energy gap.

Additionally, the promise of the “smart grid” may actually become a reality with the help of AI. Controlling certain loads during times of peak load demand – such as turning off hot water heaters or EV charging stations – can significantly flatten the demand curve.

Real-Time Pricing

Economics are obviously a huge incentive. Time-of-day pricing schemes have been implemented across the country in an effort to entice consumers to use more power when it is readily available and cut their consumption during high demand periods. These pricing schemes reflect the reality that utilities often face quite different costs when providing power, depending on load demand.

Average wholesale electricity prices across the U.S. generally hover between $20-$40 per MWh. However, during extreme weather events those prices can soar to several thousand dollars per MWh. As a result, consumers often purchase power at prices that are well below cost during some hours and well above cost in others. Trying to match these events can be confusing, causing consumers to simply ignore complex rate structures. As a result, a study by Wharton estimates that traditional time-of-use pricing policies only deliver 17-20% of the efficiency gain that would be possible with real-time pricing.⁹

Real-time pricing (RTP) seeks to lower cost and reliability risks by passing through actual supply costs to consumers as they occur. Imagine a time when the price of electricity will vary second-to-second based on how much demand is on the grid at that moment. By encouraging load shifting (running loads that are not critical during a time of lower-cost power), RTP can help smooth and flatten demand curves.

In order to meet anticipated load growth, the grid will need to unlock over 120 GW of new power sources each year through 2030. © Firefly generated

But clearly, in order to make this vision a reality, constant and real-time monitoring and controls must manage the system. And here is where AI comes into play. Utilities will require AI-enabled systems that track and price energy costs on a real-time basis. And consumers will need AI-enabled systems, controls and appliances to take advantage of the dynamic pricing. Everything moves simply too fast for humans to monitor and control these constantly shifting systems.

Utilization rates have steadily declined since 2000 as more and more renewable generation sources have been added to the grid. © FRED

Virtual Power Plants

The grid was designed as a network of utilities which controlled (within their service area) all electrical generation as well as all electrical loads (turning them off when supply could not meet demand). This is clearly no longer the case.

The proliferation of distributed energy resources (primarily solar and storage) is taking control out of the hands of the utility and placing it into those of the customers. All those distributed sources of energy represent yet another potential energy resource that could be better harvested to meet the needs of the grid.

SEIA (the Solar Energy Industries Association) tells us that “Virtual Power Plants (VPPs) are a network of small energy generation sites—think hundreds of homes with rooftop solar—that are combined with storage technologies like home batteries and electric vehicles to help grid operators manage peak demand, improve affordability, and bolster grid resilience.”¹⁰

And there is a lot of potential energy out there. The DOE estimates that by 2030 virtual power plants could provide 80-160 GW of capacity, meeting 20% of peak load demand. And this is energy that can be had at an affordable cost. The DOE further estimates that a new 400 MW virtual power plant would have a net cost of $43 per kW-year, while a similarly sized gas peaker plant would cost about $99 per kW-year.¹¹ Once again AI will be required to effectively manage these resources, moving power from where it is available to where it is needed on a real-time basis.

Predictive Everything

With the integration of AI into all aspects of the grid, comes the ability to predict events and control response to all aspects of the grid.

Predictive hyperlocal weather data will enable grid operators to analyze temperature, humidity, and extreme weather events on a granular level, allowing utilities to anticipate load spikes during heatwaves or cold snaps, optimize renewable generation (solar/wind), and pre-position crews for potential outages.

Predictive equipment maintenance will soon allow utilities to forecast equipment failures before they cause power outages. Rather than dealing with failures as they happen, utilities can reduce unplanned downtime by 50–70% and lower maintenance costs by 20–40% according to studies by the DOE.¹²

AI has the potential to change nearly every aspect of our lives. The grid will be no exception.

The nation’s utility grid is a highly complex network of millions of interconnected devices. A perfect playground for AI. Grid operators are already envisioning a day when AI models will investigate and troubleshoot potential problems, automate workflows, and take autonomous actions based on AI-driven insights.

Is the grid now a relic of the past?

As the way power is used and delivered is altered dramatically over the next few years, it is not outside the realm of possibilities to assume that AI will also reshape the very utility model that has remained largely unchanged since the days of Edison and Tesla.

With the rise of virtual power plants, it may prove to be only a short leap in regulatory logic to find the first virtual utility competing with the traditional investor-owed incumbents. Virtual utilities that manage vast amounts of power transactions without owning a single power plant or a meter of wire.

And as homeowners and businesses find that they can install off-grid systems more cheaply than continuing to purchase power from the grid – utilities will have to change their business model from thinking of themselves as electricity providers to thinking of themselves as the facilitators of connected energy services. We have seen these transitions before as technology reshapes long entrenched systems: the destruction of “Ma Bell” in favor of wireless telephony and the explosion of the Internet; the emergence of virtual banks such as PayPal and Venmo.

As Douglas Adams once said, “Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn’t work properly yet.” And AI certainly fits that bill at the moment. But once it gets its act together, it will help to transform how we use electricity in ways we cannot yet imagine.

About the Author
Jay Warmke is the author of numerous green technology books and has developed renewable energy curriculum for many colleges and universities across North America in his capacity is the owner of Solar PV Training LLC. He has served as vice president of the board of directors of Green Energy Ohio and as president of the International Certification and Accreditation Council. In 2015 he was elected to ETA’s Board of Directors and for the past 10 years has served as Chair of the Renewable Energy Committee. He also currently sits on the ASES editorial advisory committee.

Solar Sal and the 200th Anniversary of the Erie Canal

Sunshine Urbaniak — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 15:20:59 +0000

In the 1800s, many American families were farmers. Think Little House on the Prairie or some other scenario that is vastly different from your current life. Farm work was all about getting the ground ready for seeds, putting seeds in the ground, and hoping to harvest enough for the winter.

If you had a mule or a horse, you could access about 10 times the power of a person. That factor of ten made it possible to plow, plant, and harvest more than your family could consume, providing a cash crop. Cash was king.

For many parts of our country, the Erie Canal brought commerce. You could sell your farm’s produce to a wider market and get a new shirt that arrived on a canal boat, many times easier than the shirt you wanted before the canal existed.

Attached to the boats by a rope, mules and horses walked along a towpath next to the canal, pulling the barges behind them as they went. Teams of horses or mules worked in shifts. Compared to overland travel of their time, these barges were the equivalent of today’s jumbo jets in terms of efficiency and scale.

Today, I use a solar electric mule to power the boats I sometimes ride on the Erie Canal. But instead of a couple of acres of grassland to feed my solar-powered mule, the area on the roof of the boat provides a couple of horsepower. This remarkable ratio, maybe 1000 to 1, results from both the inefficiency of the food chain from sunlight to animals and the over 20% efficiency of doped silicon crystals in converting solar photons into a direct electric current.

Having traveled 1400 miles, the equivalent of Maine to Florida, voyaging with my son from Bellingham, Washington, to Glacier Bay, Alaska, in a 100% solar electric boat, I feel confident to say I have a solar electric-powered mule.

Solar Sal Boats is building our 12th 100% solar powered electric boat. One of our boats, a 25-foot model, has been in operation for 14 years on an Adirondack lake with no road and no electricity. As a launch, it takes people, their baggage, and most importantly, their food to up to 50 people living in the woods in tents. Sometimes it takes lumber or a cement mixer!

The most well-known Solar Sal boat is a 44-foot commercial tour boat that generates revenue for the Hudson River Maritime Museum in Kingston, New York. Named Solaris, she is the first 100% solar U.S. Coast Guard-inspected boat.

An outing on Sol, the first wooden boat. © David and Harriet Borton

Solar Boating and Alaska

During the Covid slowdown in 2020, our son Alex suggested that he and I make a solar voyage 1,400 miles to Glacier Bay, Alaska, from his home in Bellingham, Washington. This suggestion did not come out of the blue. He had been cruising around the San Juan Islands in our 27-foot solar electric boat, long enough to know the boat was good for the trip. Since I had been designing, building, and piloting solar electric boats, I knew that we could afford the fuel (free solar energy). And Covid-related slowdowns meant we could afford the time.

A Short History of Our Boats

After a couple of experiments to test the concept, in 2011 my wife Harriet and I built a 25-foot wooden solar electric boat in our garage. I named her Sol (Spanish for Sun) because I put my soul into it, and she is the sole boat I thought I’d ever make. But things turned out differently: Sol was such a good boat that I couldn’t stop! She was designed as a launch for a lake in the Adirondacks and is still in use today.

Solaris Construction at HRMM. © DHudson River Maritime Museum

The hull form of Sol was found by our son Alex. Dennis Wolfe in Michigan had made a plug in version that looked perfect for our boat. Dennis made the ribs, or forms, and bulkheads that define the cross sections of the boat for us. These shapes are mounted on a wooden frame attached to the floor of our garage. This ladderback or hardback sets up the coordinate system for shaping the boat. Once the frames are firmly attached to the hardback, I choose to use 1-inch x 1-inch red cedar strips to frame the hull.

Other traditional boat-making techniques use wider planks and other woods and make the boat right-side up. By making the boat upside down, however, the entire hull is available for attaching the strips, then smoothing the surface, and, in this case, adding a couple of layers of fiberglass for extra strength and durability. The process of getting a smooth final shape is called fairing, and the finished result is ready for painting.

Typically, the sides are painted with the desired color, and a red “boot stripe” is painted at the waterline. The bottom usually has “bottom paint,” which is formulated for saltwater or freshwater and contains ingredients to reduce the growth of plants and animals that need a surface to grow on. ‘Roll over’ is the exciting process of releasing the hull from the hardback and turning it right side up. The interior of the boat can have a wide variety of designs and features, but some items are required. Sol has an electric outboard motor hidden in a motorwell just ahead of the transom. The motor is controlled from the helm and steered by a round or spoked wheel. A throttle controls the electric power going from the batteries to the motor and thus the boat’s speed and direction.

Sol has a solid roof that supports 1.5 kW of solar photovoltaic panels. The panels’ electrical output is connected to a charge controller that provides the correct amount of power to charge the battery. This power level depends on the type of battery and the state of charge, or how full the battery is.

Attaching panels to Solaris roof.© David and Harriet Borton

For me, a solar-electric boat is practical if the power available on the roof approximately equals the power required to move the boat through the water at its hull speed. Hull speed is the physical limit for a displacement hull moving in the water. As the boat moves, it generates a wave, and as the boat moves faster, it generates a wave with a longer wavelength. When the wavelength equals the length of the boat, the water is pushed higher, but the boat doesn’t go faster.

Experimental Model on Mohawk River. © David and Harriet Borton

Speed boats have a flatter bottom and more powerful, fuel-powered engines that can push the boat up and over the bow wave. This is a different physics that supports the boat in a planing configuration. Sol’s displacement hull is supported by the water around it. Planing boats are supported by pushing the water down hard enough to lift the boat up.

Family volunteers helping to build Solar Sal. © David and Harriet Borton

The solar panels on a solar electric boat are chosen for their high efficiency in converting light into electrical power. The system’s wiring is chosen to minimize power loss during transmission. Good charge controllers have high efficiency, and efficient batteries are a topic in and of themselves. Boat motors used to have a commutator that controlled the position of the magnetic fields by connecting carbon brushes to different windings. Recently, high-power electronic current control has enabled brushless motors and requires essentially no annual maintenance.

These practical boats have no fuel cost, require no plugging in to charge, and are usually fully charged when you step to the helm and turn on the motor. Like turning on a light switch, the power is instantaneously available.

Electric motors have several specific advantages over internal combustion engines. One is that the torque that turns the propeller is fully available when you turn up the throttle. For a fuel-powered engine, the torque depends on RPM, and so the engine must speed up to get to full torque.

A more important difference is that a fuel engine must be turning at a minimum idle speed; it can’t operate below that speed without stalling. The engine clunks into forward or reverse at idle. In contrast, an electronically controlled electric motor powers at every speed from zero to full speed, with no clunk and instant torque. This control is important for ease of docking and maneuvering in tight spaces.

Sal on the Erie Canal

My next boat was a 40-foot wooden solar-electric boat, designed as proof of concept for both cargo and passengers. She was planned for the Erie Canal, and during the building by volunteers, the group was thinking of the Erie Canal song.

“I’ve got a mule, her name is Sal, 15 miles on the Erie Canal…”

A friend suggested “Solar Sal,” and the name stuck. (We have since adopted the name “Solar Sal Boats” for our entire line of solar-electric boats.) Just after completion in 2015, the original Solar Sal made a cargo trip the length of the Erie Canal from the Hudson River to the Niagara River at Buffalo. There she picked up four tons of cardboard and returned to a paper mill a little north on the Hudson River, a 750-mile solar-powered recycling trip. This was the first carbon-free trip on the Erie Canal since mules.

Solaris and Solar Sal 24, traveling together near Kingston, New York. © David and Harriet Borton

These boats did not generate a lot of buzz in the boating world, so we made a plan—a 44-foot, U.S. Coast Guard-inspected boat certified to carry paying passengers. That was a big change because I’m not recognized by the Coast Guard as either a boat designer or a boat builder. Therefore, we found an excellent and well-known Marine architect, Dave Gerr, and in 2017, put his detailed design out to bid. We chose the Riverport Wooden Boat School in Kingston to build her. The Boat School is part of the Hudson River Maritime Museum, and during the build, they realized she was the perfect boat for them. The museum bought her, christened her Solaris, and since her launch in 2019, they have been giving regular tours on the Hudson River and Rondout Creek. She is very popular and never needs to be plugged in.

If you think any of this was straightforward, you’d be wrong. As required for a boat carrying paying passengers, the Coast Guard was actively involved throughout the construction process. But they had incomplete rules for electric boats and no regulations for solar boats, and we had the first 100% solar-electric boat seeking Certification. That was a learning experience in both directions.

Alex, living on the West Coast, wanted to introduce solar electric boats out there. He found Sam Devlin, a well-known and respected boat builder, and together they developed a 27-foot Solar Sal for the Pacific Northwest. Our other son, Chuck, who also lives in the east, came up with the name for the west coast boat, Wayward Sun, pun intended! Alex cruised Wayward Sun around Puget Sound, the San Juan Islands, and into the Strait of Georgia in southern British Columbia.

In 2021, Alex and I prepared the boat for the Alaska trip and cruised to Sidney on Victoria Island to see if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would let us into the waters of British Columbia during Covid. The land portion of BC was shut down to Americans, and even internal travel was curtailed. The Mounties thought our boat looked on the small side, but let us in if we followed the rules: don’t go on land; do go the shortest route; don’t stop unnecessarily, etc.

Wayward Sun in Glacier Bay. © David and Harriet Borton

About three days were sunny during the cloudy, rainy, foggy Inside Passage, but we had lots of solar energy. Because electric motors are quiet, we heard lots of whales spouting, saw lots of charismatic mega-fauna, and enjoyed mountains, glaciers, and waterfalls. Covid restrictions kept passenger vessels and cruise ships out of the waters and the docks along the way. Barges with timber and wood chips, shipping containers, and construction equipment enlivened the first half of the BC route, but thinned out the rest of the way. Occasional fishing boats went by, and a couple of times we saw them fishing.

David and Alex arrive in Ketchikan, Alaska on Wayward Sun. © David and Harriet Borton

We did get a sunny day during our stop in Ketchikan and again in Juneau. The best was the sun for our day at the face of the Margerie Glacier. We could see 14,000-foot mountains and snowfields at the top of the glacier. Calving ice made lots of different noises and various iceberg pieces around us — a small boat at the foot of a 250-foot-high, half-mile-wide glacier face. It was fun to restock our food cooler with chunks of glacier ice.

To make our boats more affordable, we decided to build a smaller fiberglass model – a day boat designed for families and small groups. After making molds for a Solar Sal 24’ model, we built three 24’ fiberglass boats, all of which are currently for sale.

Our most ambitious and high-end solar boat is now nearing completion in Port Townsend, WA., with the launch expected this August. A departure from our previous boats, its semi-displacement hull allows for higher speeds, assuming plug-in charging when needed. This will give the Townsend 34 the speed and range of a comparable diesel trawler.

Townsend 34 artist rendering, launch expected August 2026. © Alex Borton

I know that the physics works, and I consider these solar-electric boats to be practical. Some folks may think that the speed of these boats (hull speed or sailboat speed) is too slow. But the go-fast boats require either petroleum fuel or shore-based electric power to charge their batteries. Solar electric boats silently charge themselves and take me where I want to go. And the sun’s energy is free forever.

About the Author
Capt. David Borton has been in canoes and Adirondack guideboats since birth. After the 1974 oil crisis, David put his physics Ph.D. to work in solar energy research and development and in teaching solar energy engineering. More recently, he has focused on developing solar-powered electric boats. www.solarsal.solar

EVs and the Grid: Supporting Resilience, or Driving Defection?

Sunshine Urbaniak — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 14:57:41 +0000

In 2000, the National Academy of Engineering named mass electrification and automobility as the first and second greatest engineering achievements of the 20th century.¹ Now, a quarter century later, the two are converging through electric vehicles (EVs). However, many developments have been met with resistance.

EVs are giant batteries on wheels. They could smooth out the daily and seasonal variations of energy flows on the electric grid, making the grid more reliable and everyone’s electricity cheaper. But a self-serving alliance of disparate interests is working hard to discourage EV adoption. One front of their many attacks involves apocalyptic tales of grid collapse.

Reduced photovoltaic (PV) system prices have made storage costs the main hurdle to going off-grid. But if your car provides storage, the marginal cost of cutting the cord (“grid defection”) drops drastically. Grid defection is less than ideal for society, no matter how much sense it makes to an individual. But utilities, seeking to maintain their monopolies and to usurp all the benefits of solar for themselves, are creating an environment in which defection has become a logical option for many customers.

None of this opposition is based on truth. Ultimately, it will fail. But even short-term success would be problematic. If we’re to end up with the environmentally, economically, and democratically optimal energy system we deserve, we have a lot of work (education, lobbying, etc.) to do.

The Value of the Grid

The electric grid is a shining example of community in action. Shared use of the equipment necessary to produce and deliver electricity results in massive cost, efficiency, and environmental benefits, compared to users acting independently. Unfortunately, these advantages introduce a huge sociopolitical challenge.

Because the benefits of cooperation are so strong, the grid is a “natural monopoly.” Unlike the “free” and “fair” markets which are the focus of undergraduate economics curricula, natural monopolies are “winner-take-all” markets. Even if competition were allowed, economies of scale would mean that one participant would eventually dominate, putting all others out of business.

At the dawn of the electric age, governments recognized this reality and chose to optimize capital efficiency by granting utilities territorial monopolies. These utilities were vertically integrated, with all necessary components vested in the same company: generation, transmission and distribution (T&D), and control. The granting governments, recognizing the dangers of relying on monopolies for a critical service, chose to retain citizen control by establishing public utilities commissions (PUCs). PUCs are state-level entities, but are now complemented by a wide assortment of federal agencies.

What a Tangled Web

Regulated utility monopolies are among the most successful and visible examples of public-private partnerships in the United States today. The language and concepts of free market purity, competitive advantage earned through customer satisfaction, and other tropes of laissez-faire capitalism simply don’t apply. But that doesn’t stop dishonest actors from using such language as they try to co-opt the regulatory process.

Very soon, the grid will undergo a major shift. Climate and other sustainability goals demand much greater flexibility, far better T&D connectivity, and less reliance on inflexible base load generation. Existing storage, put in place mainly to accommodate high fractions of base generation (especially nuclear), will become increasingly useful (and hence see improved capital efficiency) in the presence of higher fractions of intermittent generating assets like wind and solar.

From Outer Space to a Wire Near You

Before the 1990s, PV only made financial sense off-grid (starting with the ultimate off-grid application: spacecraft). As technology improved and markets expanded, prices dropped. Though still high, they fell enough that committed individuals could justify installing PV on the grid. By the early 2000s, ASES and other advocacy groups were winning fairer compensation and interconnection protocols, most notably net metering. The resulting market growth lowered system prices enough to make both utility-scale PV and grid-tied distributed generation (DG) financially attractive. For those interested in history, Home Power Magazine, now available through an online archive, chronicled this evolution in real time from 1987 until 2018.²

Customer-owned DG represents a major disruption of the investor-owned utility (IOU) business model. IOUs are fighting tooth and claw to retain their obsolete monopolies. Using a script provided by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a segment of conservative politicians disingenuously attacks DG by reducing or eliminating net metering compensation, adding bogus fees, and erecting other hurdles. Their arguments accuse net-metered customers of freeloading, claiming that DG systems add costs that their (presumably wealthy) owners don’t pay, creating a cross-subsidy from less affluent ratepayers.

Contrary to ALEC’s main line of attack, numerous independent studies have concluded that net metering introduces no significant cross-subsidy.³ In fact, many studies show the opposite: a significant cross-subsidy from net metered customers to other ratepayers.^4,5

Because batteries are usually the most expensive part of an off-grid system, most grid-tied PV systems don’t include storage, and anti-islanding safety features prevent them from generating power during grid outages. Accordingly, much of ALEC’s model legislation “encourages” net metered ratepayers to add storage. The real purpose is to raise system costs, lengthening payback times, and discouraging investment.

Driving to Resilience (The Opportunity)

EVs disrupt an even broader group of industries than PV. Automotive OEMs (original equipment manufacturers, the people who build complete vehicles) have generally accepted their fate: they can either develop competitive EVs or they can surrender to China and go bankrupt. But other industries (oil and gas, biofuels, ocean shipping, and automotive suppliers, to name just a few) are still resisting. Their primary weapons are euphemistically called “disinformation” and “spin”; in plain language, lies.

One pervasive claim is that EVs will crash the grid. But the opposite is true. Cars are typically parked 22 hours a day, so EVs represent an almost totally dispatchable load. Drivers can be encouraged to charge during off-peak hours by offering modest incentives, such as lower prices. With significant added revenue and almost no added expense, utilities get a much smoother load profile, making the grid more reliable. Ratepayers get lower rates.

The extent to which EVs can be used to power non-automotive loads varies, and is described using a host of associated terms.⁶

Quite a few existing and proposed vehicles can export power.⁷ It is not the purpose here to definitively establish nomenclature, nor to catalog product offerings in such a rapidly evolving market. So let’s just call all bidirectional power capability V2L (vehicle-to-load), and emphasize that it already exists and is growing fast. As IEEE (formerly the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), SAE (the Society of Automotive Engineers), ISO (the International Organization for Standardization), and other bodies standardize hardware and related protocols, we can expect V2L to spread even faster.

Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck powering a construction site. © Ford Motor Company

With V2L, EVs’ potential as storage and dispatchable supply becomes at least as attractive as their dispatchable demand. Numerous companies are already enlisting EV owners to participate in virtual power plants, which will use the EVs’ batteries to completely replace gas-fired peaker plants, the most expensive power on the grid.⁸

Playing Well with the Other Children

As stated earlier, the grid is a community that facilitates resource sharing. But communities only work when everyone practices the kindergarten lessons of sharing and fairness.

For example, in the western North Carolina mountains (my home), electric demand peaks in the winter, and my net-zero PV system produces a summer surplus. But that overproduction isn’t wasted; the grid carries it to the piedmont of North and South Carolina, helping power the air conditioners that define summer peaks there. Conversely, a net-zero system in the piedmont might overproduce in winter, helping run my heat pump. Grid connectivity also allows ratepayers who can’t invest in PV to share in the benefits available to those who can, such as lower rates and greater reliability.

Storage tells a similar story. Duke Energy’s Lake Keowee / Jocassee / Bad Creek pumped storage hydroelectric facility in upstate South Carolina was built to absorb the excess off-peak output of the Oconee nuclear station. But it also buffers the intermittency of all other generators
on the grid, notably solar and wind.

Utility-owned batteries, located at the substation level in the distribution network and shared by all customers in that zone, could provide buffering with far fewer batteries than an equally capable array of independent, customer-owned systems. But the ALEC playbook pushed by most IOUs “encourages” individual, civic-minded customers to install (and fund) the batteries. Through punitive fees, inadequate reimbursement rates, and other sleight of hand, the same playbook seeks to create a system which lets utilities hoard all the benefits, just as it does with customer-owned generation.

A related dynamic is playing out with massive proposed expansions to support hyperscaled data centers for artificial intelligence (AI) and cryptocurrency operations. These investments are only necessary because of the projected new loads, but well-connected lobbyists for these uber-wealthy industries are seeking to push the expense into the rate base funded by all customers.

Overlanding (Leaving the Main Road)

Until recently, most ratepayers would have been forced to accept such unfairness, leaving only the IOUs to make the investments (the real goal of the subterfuge). But EVs with V2L are game changers. And there’s nothing like a disaster to put change in the spotlight.

When Hurricane Helene hit western North Carolina in September 2024, EVs did yeoman service. Some EVs have built-in AC plugs, both 120 and 240 volts.9 Over-the-counter adapters can turn the J1772 AC charging port on other EVs into a 120V AC outlet. Both approaches proved useful in running medical equipment, chainsaws, and other tools as people recovered from the storm. A friend and fellow EV advocate used a simple homebrewed inverter setup to run five refrigerator/freezers and a variety of other household appliances for a week, using only half the battery capacity of his Chevy Bolt (about 32 kWh, out of 64 total).

Post-Helene, generator sales in the area have increased markedly. But a typical generator costs $12,000, installed, and requires quite a bit of ongoing maintenance. Usually fueled from a methane line or a propane tank, and always loud, you only run it when you absolutely must. On the other hand, a PV system with modest battery backup is useful 365 days a year, with very low fuel costs, no noise, and almost no maintenance.

Most grid-tied PV systems lack batteries, mainly due to cost. Batteries also carry an environmental penalty, since they consume, rather than generate, electricity. The most productive way to build a flexible, reliable, environmentally optimal system is to have more customer-owned generation directly feeding the grid, with utilities building the bulk of the storage.

However, with memories of the hurricane (and wildfires or other disasters in other locations) still strong, many home PV owners are adding battery backup. Battery prices have fallen, and continue to fall, precipitously – 99% since the 1990s. Concurrently, punitive changes to net metering tariffs are leading many to consider a minimal battery pack to enable greater self-consumption and lower bills. But it’s a slippery slope.

If a microgrid can island itself for a few hours or days, the main impediment to staying off-grid permanently is the cost of the battery pack required for the most extreme sunless stretch, which only occurs every few years. But an EV with an average-sized battery can power an entire house for several sunless days, then drive to a power source and bring home a fresh load of electricity when its charge gets low. Even the most extreme case is covered, with no need for the hawk-eyed attention to consumption required in those off-grid homes described in early issues of Home Power.

People Get Ready (Just Get On Board)

Affordable energy is a luxury by world standards, but has become essential for life in developed countries. As with most necessities, freedom and democracy matter a lot in the energy arena. However financially viable it may become, defection from the grid by DG owners would be highly undesirable for society at large. But it’s a serious risk, given the way IOUs are resisting this evolution.^10,11

ALEC’s propaganda claims that penalizing DG owners protects less affluent ratepayers. But, as more PV owners defect, the grid’s fixed costs would be spread among fewer customers, leading to even more defections. Ultimately, only lower-wealth ratepayers would remain on-grid, and large amounts of extra capital would have been expended creating a socially undesirable electricity system (no longer a fully interconnected grid) that is neither economically nor environmentally optimal.

The electric grid of the near future will require significant up-front capital investment to realize the most cost-effective long-term solution. Storage and distributed rooftop solar will play an essential part in meeting those goals.¹² Fair tariffs and other protocols are essential to protect IOUs from the fate already experienced by landline telephone companies.

Any game must be fair to everyone playing to be sustainable. The rules of the electricity game are heavily influenced by the people in charge of utilities and utilities commissions. We must help them make the right choices.

“It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more.” – Marge Piercy (from “The low road”)

About the Author
Automotive engineer and ASES Life Member Dave Erb has developed vehicles using gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, alcohol, methane, electric, and hybrid electric powertrains. He wrote Chapter 1 of David Hrivnak’s “Driving to Net 0: Stories of Hope for a Carbon-Free Future,” a collection of 15 first-person accounts of families combining electric vehicles with solar houses and other sustainability strategies. He hasn’t bought gas
since 2019.

Sources:

What Is Really Driving California’s Electricity Bills?

Sunshine Urbaniak — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 14:35:46 +0000

Californians are paying the second-highest residential electricity rates in the Country, and a popular explanation — that rooftop solar customers are shifting costs onto everyone else — has it backwards.¹ Bundled average rates in PG&E’s service territory rose from roughly $0.24 per kWh in 2018 to $0.37 per kWh in 2024 in real USD — an increase of about 52% in six years after accounting for inflation.² That trajectory is real, painful, and worth solving. But the data show that the principal drivers are wildfire-related capital spending, an aging long-distance transmission system, electric rate design flaws, and authorized utility returns³ — not the roughly 18 GW of customer-owned solar that Californians have installed since the early 2000s.⁴

This article explains how data and the law converge on two findings that lead to a single conclusion. First, the largest, fastest-growing components of Californians’ electric bills are utility capital costs — wildfire hardening, transmission expansion, and grid infrastructure — driven by forces unrelated to rooftop solar, and which distributed solar measurably helps to constrain by reducing peak transmission load and deferring infrastructure investment. Second, California’s rate-making framework — built for a one-way grid that no longer exists — neither credits the system benefits that customer owned solar delivers nor allocates costs and benefits fairly across ratepayer classes. Modernizing rate design, by unbundling the recovery of fixed grid infrastructure costs from the variable price of energy generation, is the structural fix. Together, these findings point to one conclusion: the most realistic path to affordability as electrification, EV charging, and data-center loads expand is to revisit our approach to rate design and to help many more Californians — especially renters, small businesses, and dense urban neighborhoods — own their own solar-energy supplies.

What is Actually Driving the Rate Increases

PG&E, California’s largest investor-owned utility (IOU), charged residential customers an average of $0.39 per kWh in June 2025.⁵ When economists, such as those at U.C. Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas, dissect the typical California residential rate, only about 12–15 cents per kWh reflects the competitive marginal cost of generating and delivering electricity.⁶ The remaining 25 cents or more covers fixed cost-recovery for capital projects, public-purpose programs, securitized wildfire claims, and authorized return on the utility’s investments.⁷ The California Public Advocates Office attributes roughly 21% of the rate — about $0.08 per kWh — to wildfire-related capital and operating costs, making them the single largest driver of recent rate increases.⁸

PG&E’s 2020 and 2023 General Rate Case decisions, together with separately recovered wildfire-cost memorandum accounts, authorize billions of dollars annually for vegetation management, system hardening, public safety power shutoffs, and undergrounding.⁹ PG&E’s 10,000-Mile Undergrounding Program alone has been projected at costs ranging from approximately $3 million per mile to nearly $6 million per mile, depending on terrain, urbanization, and contractor pricing.¹⁰

California’s liability framework intensifies that pressure. Under inverse condemnation as applied to IOUs, an electric utility can be held strictly liable for wildfire damage tied to its equipment even where no negligence is found.¹¹ Utilities have rationally responded by deploying as much capital as the CPUC will authorize.

Authorized capital earns a regulated return on equity, which as of the date of this report, is between 10.23% and 10.33% for the three California IOUs, and above the national average.¹² That return is paid on a rate base that has grown by more than 50% since 2018, but that far outpaces load growth, which has been essentially flat over the same period. Out of this dynamic has emerged the cost-shift claim: that net energy metering (NEM), California’s program of bill credits for energy solar customers’ exports to the grid, amounts to a subsidy running from lower-income, non-solar households to wealthier solar owners. It is the most repeated argument against solar ownership rights in the state. However, the myth fails under scrutiny.

A Closer Look at the Solar Cost-Shift Myth

The “cost shift argument” compares the retail credit that NEM customers receive for exported energy with a modeled “avoided cost” the utility would otherwise pay.¹³ The “cost shift” that comparison purports to measure is largely a mirage produced by California’s rate design itself — a design that picks and chooses how to load ratepayers with costs they should not bear and fails to recognize the benefits that distributed solar provides.

The standard avoided-cost calculation is structurally biased against solar in three ways analysts have repeatedly documented:

(a) The Avoided-Cost Calculator (ACC) that drives the California Public Utility Commission’s (CPUC’s) NEM cost-effectiveness analysis excludes documented benefits of distributed generation — avoided line losses, deferred transmission and distribution upgrades, locational capacity value during net-peak hours, and resilience benefits during Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events.¹⁴

(b) Rooftop solar reduces the same wildfire-related transmission build-out that drives most of the rate increase discussed above.¹⁵

(c) The calculation is sensitive to which year’s gas price, capacity-value methodology, and discount rate the analyst chooses.¹⁶

A deeper problem is that the purported “cost shift” occurring does not measure a transfer at all. The Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC’s) Powering Change report shows that the dynamic behind California’s rising electric rates is not solar customers receiving a benefit at someone else’s expense. It is the mechanics of how utilities recover their costs. NRDC’s analysis claims that today’s non-solar residential rates are approximately $0.07 per kWh higher than they would be without NEM, which is around 16% of California’s total residential IOU retail rate today; further, they state that $0.05 per kWh of that increase has occurred since 2018.¹⁷

Critically, NRDC characterizes that figure not as a payment from non-solar to solar customers, but as a rate-design construct: the consequence of behind-the-meter solar reducing IOU energy sales. It reflects the recovery of growing fixed costs on flat or decreasing demand by increasing rates, not a direct payment from one ratepayer to another.

That distinction matters. A “subsidy,” in ordinary usage, is “a benefit given by the government, or a public or private organization, to a person, business, or industry” requiring a direct, intentional transfer. What occurs with solar is a free-market outcome: utilities lose anticipated revenue when their customers generate some of their own electricity and sell the energy on the open grid. The compensation those customers receive for that solar energy is no more a “subsidy” extracted from the utility than the income a homeowner earns selling vegetables from a backyard garden at a farmers’ market is a “subsidy” extracted from the supermarket whose produce sales they displace. In both cases, the producer is paid for a good they grew or generated.

The comparison is also rigged by mismatched timeframes. The cost-shift figure is cumulative — the alleged share of the current residential bill accumulated across every NEM customer who has interconnected since 1997. The wildfire figure typically paired against it is a recent slice. Setting one against the other is like comparing the odometer reading of your car to the trip meter from this morning’s drive. Both are in miles. Neither tells you what the other does.

Compared on a consistent basis — recent against recent, or all-time against all-time — wildfire dominates by a wide margin.18 And the trajectories diverge from there. NEM 3.0, in effect since April 2023, sharply reduced export compensation for new entrants, structurally constraining NEM’s contribution to future rate growth. Wildfire spending has no such constraints.

Wildfire-related costs are the single largest driver of California’s residential rate increases. By any reasonable accounting, wildfire-related recovery is materially larger than NEM’s share of the residential bill, and the gap is widening as undergrounding capital, insurance premiums, and Wildfire Fund obligations continue to rise.¹⁹ The CPUC’s 2023 SB 695 report confirms that wildfire-related costs — mitigation, insurance, and liability — are the primary statewide driver of rate increases over the past decade. Solar customers, by reducing peak transmission load, are helping to mitigate the very wildfire-hardening build-out that drives those costs upward.²⁰

Finally, the cost-shift framing has a deeper problem than its arithmetic: it presumes there is a net cost to apportion in the first place. Once the offsetting benefits of distributed solar are credited, that premise collapses. A 2024 analysis found that existing solar customers collectively reduced costs for all California ratepayers by approximately $1.5 billion in a single year — through reduced peak grid demand, deferred transmission investment, and lower wholesale energy procurement.²¹

And looking towards the future, grid-optimization modeling predicts that a distributed clean-energy system will be $88 billion less expensive to build and operate than a centralized alternative because Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) reduce the infrastructure that the long-distance transmission system exists to carry.²²

The Historical – and Continuing – Cost Shift

The phrase “cost shift” has a much longer history in U.S. electric ratemaking than the present rooftop-solar debate. As Sharon Beder summarizes in Power Play, publicly owned utilities historically charged residential and commercial customers similar rates to industrial customers, while IOUs charged residential and commercial customers materially more to keep industrial rates competitive with the public-power neighbor next door.²³

In 1994, IOU residential customers paid 31% more per kWh than publicly-owned residential customers, while IOU industrial rates were the same as public-power industrial rates. The structural pattern: IOUs have been shifting ratepayer costs among other ratepayer classes long before rooftop solar.

Two further pieces of that historical pattern are visible in present-day California. First, ownership of the IOUs is concentrated among institutional investors, layered in multiple tiers of holding companies, and held by out-of-state hedge-fund stakeholders whose authorized return on equity is ultimately recovered from California ratepayers. Executive compensation at California’s largest investor-owned utilities (IOUs) is itself a cost of service that ratepayers ultimately pay. Most of it, base salary and cash incentives, is recovered as an operating expense in the utility’s revenue requirement, not through the authorized return on equity. Regulatory filings for fiscal year 2024 (reported in 2025) place IOU CEO pay among the highest in the nation. Sempra, the parent of SDG&E and SoCalGas, paid CEO Jeffrey Martin $21.5 million, ranking him the third highest-paid utility executive in the country.²⁴ PG&E paid CEO Patricia Poppe $15.8 million with $1.4 million in base salary plus $11.7 million in stock awards and other compensation. Edison International, parent of Southern California Edison, paid CEO Pedro Pizarro $13.8 million.²⁵ The trend has continued: an April 2026 report shows utility CEO pay rose 16% in 2025, with Poppe at $19.8 million and Pizarro at $16.5 million.²⁶

Second, every dollar of rate base financed at a return is a dollar of revenue requirement that non-solar and solar customers alike pay to capital. In that real and quantifiable sense, all retail customers — including non-solar customers — are continuously “subsidizing” investor returns by billions of dollars per year.

True Competition Means Customer Ownership

California’s 1996–2001 restructuring experiment is often cited as proof that “deregulation” failed. But that experiment did not let households or small businesses own their own electricity supply. It merely substituted competition among large generators for competition among utilities, while leaving the customer in the same passive role.²⁷

Genuine competition for the customer means letting the customer own the means of production when doing so is technically and economically feasible. Regulating concentrated, capital-intensive generation and transmission assets is appropriate; restricting an individual household, school, farm, or warehouse from producing and storing its own clean electricity is not.

The cost basis behind this conclusion is structural. Self-generated solar electricity is priced to the customer at the equipment cost and financed at consumer-loan rates, without an authorized return on capital, holding-company overhead, or executive compensation recovery.

Each kilowatt-hour purchased from an IOU, by contrast, includes the utility’s authorized return on rate base, corporate overhead, and the share of fixed-cost recovery identified in the preceding section. The savings are not theoretical.

The mechanisms to provide these savings are not novel — they are already in operation, at varying scales, in California and in other jurisdictions: fast track permitting, community solar programs, virtual net metering for multifamily housing, public-sector rooftop programs serving schools and warehouses, and successor tariffs that preserve cost-effective payback periods for solar installations.
Scaling those mechanisms is itself the most direct equity response, extending solar’s economic and resilience benefits to renters, multifamily residents, schools, small businesses, and dense urban neighborhoods that have historically been locked out of solar ownership.

Conclusion

California’s electricity rate increase problem is real, and so is the search for someone to hold accountable. But the data point unambiguously toward failed utility rate structuring and IOU capital spending — driven by wildfire liability, authorized returns, and a long-distance transmission system that customer-sited generation actually relieves — as the dominant causes.

California’s solar customers are not the source of the affordability crisis; the distributed solar industry is the most rapidly deployable, customer-aligned piece of the affordability solution. Stronger policies and regulations are needed to untap the ability to expand solar ownership opportunities, especially for renters, multifamily households, small businesses, and historically excluded communities.

A structural solution is rate-design reform. If California unbundled the fixed costs of grid infrastructure from the variable cost of energy generation — rather than recovering both through a single volumetric per-kWh charge — infrastructure costs allocated to ratepayers would decline over time, because distributed resources reduce the very build-out those costs recover, and energy generation would be priced on free-market terms in which distributed generation competes on level footing with utility-scale supply. As long as rates remain bundled and grid infrastructure remains privately held by IOUs whose authorized returns depend on volumetric sales, the conflict between utility shareholder interests and solar system owners will continue to shape every rate-making proceeding.

It is time to double down on policies that expand solar ownership rights not only as the best course for the environment, but also as the best course for the economic interests of all ratepayers.

About the Authors
Angela Lipanovich is a clean energy attorney with more than twenty years of experience advising clean energy companies and the customers they serve. She founded Estriatus Law, co-founded SolarWAVE Action, and previously served as General Counsel to a publicly traded solar company. She has helped shape key policy decisions protecting solar ownership rights and is a long-standing member and former Board member of the American Solar Energy Society (ASES).

Jenny Folkesson, Ph.D., is Executive Director and co-founder of SolarWAVE Action. A computer scientist trained at the University of Copenhagen, she brings two decades of experience in data science and machine learning, including image analysis at the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub. Her work centers on clean energy data analysis and the use of open-source code and data to support climate solutions and coastal and marine conservation.

Driving on Sunshine: A Primer

Sunshine Urbaniak — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:24:13 +0000

Fossil fuels brought us modern life. Coal jumpstarted the industrial revolution. More recently, oil and gas greatly advanced mobility and revolutionized agriculture. But today, fossil fuels are at the center of wars, major environmental damage, income inequality, and a host of other ills. It’s way past time to retire them. We can start the process with three data points and one simple calculation.

Think Globally, Act Personally

Fossil fuel interests exert inordinate control over the world’s economies and politics, so much of the transition will fall to individuals. Transportation, representing 27% of U.S. energy consumption, with roughly half of that going to light duty vehicles,¹ offers some of the lowest hanging fruit. Four steps can help propel us forward:

Reduce demand for motorized travel, by replacing some motion with forethought. Examples would include telecommuting, trip consolidation, or moving closer to one’s workplace.
Use vehicles more productively, by better matching vehicle size to payload size. Downsizing to a smaller vehicle is one way to accomplish this, carpooling is another.
Electrify vehicle powertrains, to the maximum extent allowed by the vehicles’ use cases.
Generate electricity renewably.

It’s important to rebut the mistaken argument that we shouldn’t buy electric vehicles (EVs, step 3) before we fully green the grid (step 4). In fact, each step represents immediate progress, today, even if taken in isolation. For details, see the Union of Concerned Scientists’ excellent analysis.² However, to the extent that there might be a correct order, it’s as shown. Conservation enables technology. Steps 1 and 2 are pure conservation steps. Step 3, vehicle electrification, incorporates both technology and significant conservation. Step 4 is purely technological.

None of these actions require permission. Neither OPEC, nor the president, nor anyone else has veto power. The only barrier for many people is sufficient confidence in their ability to approach steps 3 and 4 wisely.

The Difference Between Energy and Power

Though often conflated, energy and power are two distinct things. Energy is the ability to do work. Engineers and scientists have a very specific, mathematical definition of work, but it’s irrelevant here. Suffice it to say that, if doing something manually could cause you to sweat, there’s work involved.

Power is the rate at which energy is transferred or, stated another way, the speed at which work is done. If we think of energy as a substance, like water, then power is the flow rate, how fast we’re pumping the water.

Work and energy have dimensions of force times distance: Newton-meters (Nm) in SI units. To distinguish energy from torque, we call a Nm of energy a Joule (J). Power is the amount of energy transferred divided by the time it took to transfer it, Joules per second (J/s), which we call watts (W).

We distinguish size ranges using prefixes. A typical cell phone charger transfers electrical energy at a rate of about 5 W. A kilowatt (kW) is 1000 W; a lawnmower, running at full throttle, does work at a rate of about 3 kW (4 horsepower). A megawatt (MW) is 1000 kW; a railroad locomotive, running at full throttle, does work at about 3 MW. A gigawatt (GW) is 1000 MW; a modern nuclear reactor generates electricity at about 1 GW.

Since power is energy divided by time, energy is power multiplied by time: one Joule is equal to one watt-second. Measuring electrical energy is hard, but measuring electrical power is fairly easy, so utilities measure power (kW), multiply by the time the power was drawn (hours, h), add it all up at the end of the month, and bill customers for energy in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Depending on the size of the numbers, we might also express energy in watt-hours (Wh).

What does the Difference Make? (PV Edition)

People buy photovoltaic (PV) systems to produce energy (kWh). They are often sized in terms of power (W, kW). For comparison’s sake, it can be useful to think about the price of PV systems in $/watt. PV output varies with the sun’s brightness. Panels are rated by their electrical output under “peak” sun, defined as 1000 watts of light power per square meter. Actual light input depends on location, weather, and time of day and year. Additionally PV panel orientation, comprising tilt (angle above the horizontal) and azimuth (compass direction the panel faces), is also important. Some panels are on fixed mounts, others on trackers which vary the orientation to follow the sun.

Considering these factors, the amount of sunshine that hits the panel during a given time period can be expressed in “peak sun hours,” the number of hours of full noontime sun that would result in the same amount of light hitting the panel.

The National Laboratory of the Rockies (formerly NREL) has compiled extensive data on the solar resource across the United States, and programmed them into a calculator incorporating panel type and orientation to provide a month-by-month estimate of PV output in any given location. This calculator, called PVWatts, is online, and quite intuitive to use.³

2015 Chevy Spark EV listing from fueleconomy.gov. © Oak Ridge National Laboratory

To estimate peak sun hours, the PVWatts user can input data for a one kW system. The resulting energy output in kWh is numerically equal to the number of full sun hours for that location.

What Difference does the Difference Make? (EV Edition)

The power of an EV’s motor (or an internal combustion vehicle’s engine) directly impacts its dynamic performance: acceleration, top speed, gradability (the combination of speed and slope the vehicle can maintain while climbing), and towing capacity. When charging, the electrical power input (usually stated in kW) and the vehicle’s energy intensity (measured for our purposes in Wh/mile) combine to determine charging speed, the miles of range replenished for each hour spent charging.

Energy intensity can be found on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel economy website.4 However, EPA’s numbers require some massage. Mileage values for the Combined, City, and Highway cycles of the standard fuel economy test are shown in “equivalent miles per gallon.” MPGe relates all energy consumption, regardless of fuel, to the amount of energy in standard unleaded gasoline, 33.7 kWh per gallon. To turn mileage in MPGe into the corresponding energy intensity in Wh/mi, divide it into 33,700. Conversely, we can turn energy intensity in Wh/mi into MPGe by dividing it into 33,700.

EPA also provides Combined cycle energy intensity numbers in kWh/100 miles. To convert these into Wh/mi, simply multiply by 10. Combined cycle energy intensity for 2025-26 EVs lies between 230 Wh/mi (146 MPGe) and 720 Wh/mi (47 MPGe). Unlike combustion vehicles, City cycle consumption is lower than Highway for EVs. Coupled with the energy intensity, battery energy capacity (typically expressed in kWh) determines range, the distance the vehicle can travel on a charge.

The Final Countdown

Finding the PV capacity needed to charge the EV requires three data points: vehicle energy intensity (Wh/mi), annual vehicle miles traveled, and annual full sun hours at the site. Multiply energy intensity by vehicle miles traveled, then divide by full sun hours to get the amount of PV required (in W).

Using 1,400 full sun hours per year (the ten year average measured at my family’s home in Asheville, NC), 185 Wh/mi (the five year average for our Chevy Spark EV), and 6,000 mi/yr (our typical usage of the Spark), we see that the Spark consumed the output of 793 W, 13 percent of our 6 kW PV system.

Though these are real world numbers, this result is anomalously low, shown here to illustrate the danger of relying on anecdotal data. My wife and I are experienced EV drivers; our driving style tends to maximize range. Asheville is a very compact town, which minimizes the total miles traveled and maximizes the city portion of those miles. And the Spark was one of two EVs in our garage; the other one took the road trips.

EPA rates the Spark EV at 280 Wh/mi (119 MPGe) on the Combined cycle. The average American drives about 15,000 mi/yr. Using these numbers, the Spark would require the output of 3,000 W of PV, half of our 6 kW system. Driving style and distance traveled both matter. EV owners who already know their actual consumption can use that number in the calculation. The best approach for everyone else is to use the EPA Combined cycle number, because the EPA test is highly repeatable, and the Combined cycle is the best estimate of “average” U.S. driving. But nobody is actually average; we’re all above or below average. If you have a heavy right foot, or if you’d like to build a little cushion into your calculation, using the EPA Highway figure will provide a more conservative estimate.

Why Not Put the PV on the EV?

As the owner of two cars with license plates that misspell “solar car,” I get frequent pushback about the lack of solar panels on either. My panels are on the roof of my house, where they’re always properly oriented and never shaded; and on the grid, where there’s always a useful place for their output to go, even when the batteries are full. They add no weight or aerodynamic drag to the cars, and are unaffected by the brutal shock and vibration cars endure. They’re precisely where they belong.

Though permanently mounting PV

on an EV is unlikely to make sense, changes to net metering protocols, driven by fossil fuel shills in state legislatures, may change the cost equation enough to make an off-grid combination of PV and EV attractive. Declining hardware costs have already made EVs an effective source of backup power. Whether with auto manufacturer-approved systems or with simple homebrewed inverter setups, several of my neighbors put their EVs to useful (indeed, lifesaving) service during 2024’s Hurricane Helene. We’ll see a lot more of this V2L (vehicle-to-load) activity in the future. But that’s a topic for another article.

Low Hanging Fruit

Driving on sunshine is cleaner, quieter, and more pleasant than burning dead dinosaurs. It can save a lot of cash and insulate drivers from inflation. It keeps money in the community, and out of the hands of petrostate despots. And it’s ripe for the picking.

About the Author
Automotive engineer and ASES Life Member Dave Erb has developed vehicles using gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, alcohol, natural gas, electric, and hybrid electric powertrains. He and his wife live in a beyond net zero house, and haven’t bought gas since 2019.

Sources:

The Evolution of Commercial Solar: Lessons from Discontinued Solar Brands

Sunshine Urbaniak — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:13:48 +0000

The solar industry’s rapid evolution is a story of innovation, fierce competition, and dramatic exits. As countries have moved toward decarbonization and grown the share of renewable energy in the total energy mix, the commercial solar panel sector has seen both meteoric rises and sudden declines among its most prominent brands. The major implication? Supporting the growth of today’s solar after-market by replacing discontinued solar panel brands near the end of their useful life.

“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
– Thomas Edison

Solar Light to Electricity Conversion

The sunlight that hits a square foot of any surface carries 127 watts of energy. The ideal solar panel would convert 100% of this energy into electricity.

The history of commercial use of solar energy began in the mid-20th century when Bell Labs introduced the first practical silicon photovoltaic (PV) cell, boasting a then-revolutionary 6% efficiency. By the late 1950s, companies like Hoffman Electronics had pushed efficiencies to 14%, sparking commercial interest and laying the groundwork for the solar industry’s future. In 2025, solar panel efficiency continued to break new ground – LONGi launched a solar panel with a remarkable 33% efficiency in their large-area (260.9 cm²) crystalline silicon-perovskite two-terminal tandem solar cell. These efficiency gains not only demonstrate the technical feasibility of solar power but also ignite commercial and governmental interest, setting the stage for the industry’s further development.

From Pioneering Innovation to Global Expansion

The 1970s energy crisis marked a turning point. Governments and corporations, eager for alternatives to fossil fuels, accelerated solar R&D. ARCO Solar emerged as a trailblazer, becoming the first company to produce one megawatt of PV modules in a single year by 1980. Meanwhile, Japanese firms such as Sharp and Kyocera established themselves as global leaders, driving advancements in efficiency and reliability.

The 1990s saw a surge in investment, with brands like SolarWorld facilitating the adoption of crystalline silicon panels across Europe. In the United States, initiatives like the “One Million Solar Roofs” program further fueled demand for commercial solar solutions.

ARCO solar panel. © Museum of Solar

Market Shifts and the Fall of Industry Icons

The 2000s ushered in a new era of innovation, with thin-film technologies and high-efficiency modules from companies like First Solar and SunPower. This period also saw the rise of Chinese manufacturing, which dramatically lowered costs and intensified global competition.

By the 2010s, many established brands struggled to adapt. BP Solar, a committed player since the 1980s, exited the market in 2011. Solyndra, once celebrated for its unique cylindrical panels, filed for bankruptcy the same year amid unsustainable production costs. Other notable departures included Evergreen Solar, Schott Solar, and SolarWorld—each leaving a legacy of technological advancement and market expansion.

Remembering the Brands that Shaped the Industry

Despite their market exits, these discontinued brands made significant contributions to the solar industry. BP Solar was instrumental in advancing crystalline silicon technology and helped establish early commercial markets. Solyndra’s innovative cylindrical solar panels, though commercially unsuccessful, demonstrated the potential for alternative PV designs. Evergreen Solar contributed to cost reduction initiatives and manufacturing process improvements.

Ad for Bell Telephone System.

The list of discontinued solar panel brands is long and storied, featuring names such as Uni-Solar, HelioVolt, and Abound Solar, etc. Their experiences offer valuable lessons on the importance of innovation, adaptability, and strategic foresight in a rapidly changing market. Bluewater, a leading USA second-life solar equipment player, posted the full list of discontinued solar panel brands and their years in service.¹

The exit of these major players created both challenges and opportunities in the solar industry.

The After-Market Opportunity: A New Chapter for Solar

As more legacy panels reach the end of their service lives, the need to replace discontinued brands supports the after-market for solar components. Many solar consumers will be looking to source older components to match their array.

According to a recent Wood Mackenzie report, the U.S.now boasts north of 248 GW of installed solar PV capacity,² with over half a billion solar panels currently in operation.

As more panels approach the end of their 25–30 year lifespan, or are proactively replaced as part of preventive maintenance plans, the demand for solar panel replacements is growing.

In 2025 alone, the U.S. market saw tens of millions of panels replaced, and with the total installed solar capacity having grown nearly 100x since 2010, the need for replacements is expected to double each year for the next decade. Custom-sourcing matching solar panels increases utilization of idle equipment, and allows the continued performance of existing solar installations without a major overhaul.

Full list of discontinued solar panel brands: bluewaterbattery.com/discontinued-solar.

About the Author
Max Khabur is a Director of Marketing
at Bluewater, one of the U.S. leading operators in the second-life solar equipment and battery market. Formerly Max led marketing at OneCharge Lithium Batteries, and was elected Chairman of the Advanced Energy Council, representing a group of companies – members of the MHI.org (Materials Handling Industry) Association.

Sources:

https://www.bluewaterbattery.com/discontinued-solar
“US Solar Market Insight: 2024 year in review” published by Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

East–West vs. South-Facing Solar: When “More Panels” Beats “Perfect Direction”

Sunshine Urbaniak — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:00:14 +0000

If you ask ten solar professionals how to orient a rooftop array in the Northern Hemisphere, most will answer the same way: face it south. And for many projects, that remains a solid default. A south-facing array typically squeezes the most energy out of each panel.

But on many commercial roofs, and especially on flat rooftops, the real constraint is not the sun. It is space.

When roof area is limited, the question becomes: What layout lets you install the most space-efficient solar capacity within budget on the available area? In those scenarios, an east–west (E–W) layout can outperform a south-facing layout. The South layout may be “better positioned”, but the E-W allows the installation of more panels in the same area.

This article walks through when an E-W configuration makes sense, using a straightforward roof example and five case studies across the U.S.

A Quick Clarification: What We are Comparing

Before the numbers, it helps to define what “better positioned” means:

South-facing fixed tilt at optimal inclination often maximizes energy per panel.
E-W at low fixed tilt often maximizes power per available area.

The Two Conditions where East–West Shines

East–West is not a replacement for south-facing arrays in every situation. The advantage tends to show up when both conditions apply:

You are working on a flat surface. This includes flat roofs (such as malls, warehouses, office buildings, apartments, and houses), flat canopies with space constraints, and potentially floating PV platforms, such as those on ponds or reservoirs.
The tilt angle is low: from 5° to 10.° Low-tilt arrays are commonly used on flat roofs because they can reduce wind uplift forces and minimize row-to-row shading.

Low tilt is common on flat roofs for practical reasons:

It reduces the uplift load and helps manage wind-related structural requirements.
It can reduce row-to-row shading constraints because the array sits lower.
It can simplify roof loading strategies when using ballast systems.

When those two conditions are present, east-west layouts often allow tighter packing, meaning a higher power density. Also, on a space-limited roof, higher power density can translate into stronger project economics.

A Simple Roof Example (4,290 sqf)

To illustrate this trade-off, consider a flat surface measuring 4,290 square feet (sq ft) with the goal of installing as much solar capacity as is practical.

Option A is a conventional design approach that would use a south-facing ballast-mounted system. Using 450-watt modules at a 10° tilt, this surface can accommodate 120 panels, resulting in a 54 kW DC system.

Option B is an E-W configuration using the same 450-watt modules. With an 8° tilt (the same angle used by the same manufacturer for the South example), the same surface can fit 152 panels, for a total of 68.4 kW DC.

What Changed?

The roof did not get bigger. The type of module did not change. What changed is the layout efficiency.

In this example, the east–west configuration increases installed capacity from 54.0 kW to 68.4 kW, a 27% increase in capacity on the same footprint. That is the core advantage: more watts installed per square foot, which will generate more energy.

What Does that Mean for Energy Production?

To understand how this plays out, five case studies were evaluated using NREL’s PVWatts tool, assuming a 0.5% annual module degradation rate. The locations were chosen to represent a range of U.S. climates:

Orlando, Florida
Bakersfield, California
Malta, New York
Seattle, Washington
Lincoln, Nebraska

As expected, the east–west systems produce more energy in every location, not because they are more efficient per panel, but because they are larger systems on the same roof. Of course, if you can install the same amount of PV modules facing south, you will get higher energy generation than the E-W, but can you install more?

The more important question, however, is whether that additional production justifies the cost.

Installed Cost: More Capacity Does Not Always Mean Higher Cost

Estimated installed costs were calculated for each system, accounting for typical regional labor rates and site-specific structural requirements.

Structural costs vary by location. High-wind regions, such as Orlando (design wind speeds up to 137 mph), and heavy-snow areas, such as Malta, New York which can reach up to 76 pounds per square feet (psf), increase racking and ballast requirements. These factors affect both layouts, though E-W systems can sometimes distribute loads more efficiently.

Option A (left): South-facing ballast system, tilt angle 10,° 120x450W PV modules. Option B (right): E-W facing ballast system, tilt angle 8,° 152x450W PV modules. © Baker Makarem

The electrical scope, often the source of unforeseen challenges during construction, was assumed to be similar for both cases.

A Helpful Metric: Cost per Installed kW peak ($/ kWp)

This metric helps answer: How much solar capacity do you get for each dollar invested?

Across these five cases, the east–west configuration averages about 16% lower cost per installed kilowatt than the south-facing layout, with some locations showing differences as low as 23%.

For example, with a $20k budget in Seattle, a south-facing layout would allow for up to 11.69 kWp of installed capacity, producing about 11,228 kWh in the first year.

With the same budget using an east–west configuration, you could install up to 13.69 kWp of PV, with an estimated annual production of 12,074 kWh.

Payback and ROI: Where the Comparison Becomes Real

Payback Period. Payback refers to how long it takes for the system’s savings (from electricity generated) to recover the initial investment.

The analysis for the city of Orlando assumes an electricity price of $0.11 per kWh and a 6% annual increase in electricity rates. The east–west system reaches payback sooner than the south-facing system, reflecting its higher production and lower cost per kilowatt.

Payback time in years, Orlando, FL. © Baker Makarem

A shorter payback also leaves more financial margin over the system’s life to cover capital expenses, such as inverter replacements.

Return on Investment (ROI). This is another metric to consider, which measures net savings vs. investment. Across the 5 scenarios, the ROI ranged between 130% to 252%. These values can vary depending on expenses during the 20-year estimated lifespan of the system.

The message is consistent: in these examples, east–west layouts deliver stronger ROI because they install more capacity per roof area and typically do so at a lower cost per kilowatt, with higher energy production, compared to what can be installed facing south.

A Few Important Considerations

These exercises were intentionally simplified to focus on layout trade-offs. Several real-world factors can change outcomes:

Savings were calculated without rebates or incentives. Which is, in some aspect, a better perspective, since the Federal Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is no longer available.
For commercial projects, depreciation treatment can shorten payback periods and increase ROI.
Operations and maintenance costs were not modelled in detail. While these systems will incur maintenance expenses over a 20-year lifespan, the overall profitability remains strong.
It is also worth noting that east–west arrays often produce a broader daily generation profile, with more output in the morning and late afternoon. In markets with time-of-use pricing and demand charges, this flatter production curve can add additional value.

Takeaways

East–west solar configurations are not a replacement for south-facing systems, but they can be more profitable in the right scenarios.

They tend to perform best when:

The surface is flat (common in commercial buildings)
The design uses low tilt angles (5° to 10°)
Roof area is the primary concern

These conditions are common in commercial buildings, warehouses, and increasingly in floating PV systems. As floating solar continues to develop, east–west layouts may play an important role in maximizing energy output per available surface.

Sometimes, the best solar design is not about chasing the perfect angle, but about making the most of the space you have.

About the Authors
Baker Makarem is a Mechanical Engineer and NABCEP-certified ESIP, PVIP, and PVSI. He is the founder of Bakertech, a company specialized in the photovoltaic (PV) and energy storage systems (ESS) industry. He has been in the renewable energy field since 2017.

Carla Monzer previously worked as a marketing consultant in a global market research firm providing consumer, industry, and market intelligence. She is currently a PhD student in Marketing at the University of South Florida. Her research interests focus on sustainability, with particular attention to renewable energy and its interaction with consumer behavior.

The Power of Local

Sunshine Urbaniak — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:40:43 +0000

Over the past decade, one of the defining shifts in the solar industry has been the move toward a more geographically diverse supply chain. And while this transition has taken time, it has unlocked significant sustainability benefits – gains that are now shaping the industry’s long-term trajectory.

Necessity, as the saying goes, is the mother of invention. In the solar supply chain, the shift toward more localized production has proven transformative – driving value creation, strengthening energy security, increasing public acceptance of the energy transition, and improving sustainability outcomes.

While the initial push toward local manufacturing was largely driven by an urgent need, the benefits have since become increasingly compelling, particularly in reducing carbon emissions and fostering a more environmentally-responsible solar supply chain.

In today’s fast-moving solar industry, the supply disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may feel like a distant memory. Yet the repercussions of that period continue to reverberate. In early 2021, soaring shipping demand collided with constrained logistics capacity, causing shipping container costs to surge, particularly on long-distance routes.

At the time, UN Development and Trade reported that shipping costs between Asia and North America’s East Coast had increased by more than 60%, while costs between China and South America rose by an extraordinary 440%. One lasting outcome of this disruption has been a renewed focus on supply-chain security and the near- or on-shoring of component manufacturing. These efforts have been reinforced by broader discussions around the economic and strategic value of domestic solar-component production, as well as by policy initiatives designed to incentivize in-country manufacturing – most notably the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act.

Local Production 2.0

Solar supply routes remain exposed to a range of risks. In its Energy Technology Perspectives 2024 report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) highlighted the solar and clean energy sector’s reliance on “maritime chokepoints,” such as the piracy-prone Strait of Malacca. According to the IEA, roughly 50% of clean technology shipments pass through these potentially troubled waters.

Building on its heritage in tracker supply and long familiar with the logistical challenges of transporting heavy steel components, Nextpower has been at the forefront of supply-chain localization. In less than three years, Nextpower transformed its U.S. supply chain and now works with more than 40 suppliers across North America – executing projects cost-effectively, with reduced supply-chain risk and 100% domestic content (see Table 1).

As 2026 dawns, Nextpower is sourcing components from more than 100 manufacturing sites in more than 45 countries.

Standing up new manufacturing facilities or adding production lines is an enormous corporate effort – particularly when maintaining rigorous quality standards and keeping costs under control. Even more challenging is doing so on an accelerated timeline, as is often required to meet domestic-content requirements.

But this geographically diversified manufacturing footprint continues to deliver clear supply chain advantages. Manufacturing facilities established earlier this decade have demonstrated their ability to deliver meaningful value for solar project developers, local communities, and the environment alike.

Job Creation

The creation of new employment opportunities in a future-focused industry is a major benefit of establishing local production. The idea of a “just energy transition,” in which climate action goes hand in hand with efforts to address economic inequality, originated within the North American labor movement and is now widely embraced. It has even been embedded in the language of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement. By creating jobs across the value chain, the benefits of the energy transition are shared more broadly across society.

In 2024, Nextpower commissioned an independent study to quantify the impact of its local job creation efforts across North America. The study found that more than 7,780 jobs had been created, including 2,470 direct jobs, 2,350 indirect jobs, and 2,960 induced jobs – spanning manufacturing, fabrication, engineering, construction, research and development, and trucking and transportation.

These figures help quantify the substantial positive impact that solar project development and local production can deliver – yet the most enduring benefits cannot be captured by statistics alone.

Unlike the fossil fuel–dominated power system, which was built around a centralized “hub-and-spoke” model, the energy transition is giving rise to a more distributed, network-based electricity system. Clean energy generation is increasingly spread throughout the grid and often located closer to peri-urban and rural communities.

As communities come into closer contact with solar, wind, energy storage, and transmission projects, tensions can arise, sometimes slowing permitting processes or halting development altogether. When project development is accompanied by local job creation and economic participation, however, community acceptance is more readily achieved, helping to align local interests with the broader goals of the energy transition.

Enhanced Sustainability

While job creation and economic value are important outcomes of local production, its greatest impact is systemic – reshaping the sustainability profile of the solar supply chain itself. By way of context, global solar installations easily surpassed 600 GW in 2025, up from less than 60 GW just a decade ago. With solar now deploying at this massive scale, the sustainability of its supply chain has become as critical as the clean energy it delivers.

One clear example is steel production. In the United States, steel manufacturing is via Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) technology, which delivers significant emissions reductions compared with traditional Blast Furnace–Basic Oxygen Furnace (BF-BOF) methods. While BF-BOF steel production typically emits around 2.5 tons of CO₂ per ton of steel, EAF production generates only a fraction of that, approximately 0.8 tons. EAF processes also makes use of recycled steel as a feedstock – another environmental win.

Validation and Credentials

Translating these sustainability gains into products was an obvious next step. In April 2024, Nextpower introduced its NX Horizon Low Carbon Tracker (LCT) product to the market – a global first for the industry. Based on third-party verification, the solution delivers up to a 42% reduction in embedded carbon, compared with conventional alternatives.

For its flagship NX Horizon trackers, Nextpower is also raising the bar on sustainability. In 2025, the company became the first tracker manufacturer to develop an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) – essentially a verified sustainability datasheet. While EPDs are commonplace in mature industries such as automotive, their adoption in solar represents an important step forward. An EPD enhances transparency and establishes a clear sustainability baseline from which continuous improvements can be measured.

Accurately measuring and transparently reporting greenhouse gas emissions across solar tracker production and supply chains is critically important. According to Nextpower’s internal analysis, while PV modules – including cells, glass, and other materials – remain the largest source of embedded carbon in a utility-scale solar project at 43%, trackers are not far behind, accounting for 21%. By deploying NX Horizon LCT, that share can be slashed by almost half, to just 11%.

Another long-overlooked contributor to project emissions also warrants closer attention: aluminum module frames. Although slender, aluminum frames are responsible for an outsized 25% of a project’s embedded carbon. Here, too, meaningful progress can be made.

By replacing energy-intensive aluminum with steel frames, frame-related emissions can be reduced by 80% to 90% depending on the raw material source. Recognizing both this emissions advantage and the added structural robustness steel offers for today’s large-format modules, Nextpower acquired steel-frame developer Origami Solar in September 2025. The company is now working with project developers to bring this innovative approach into the industry mainstream.

Taken together, the combination of steel module frames and NX Horizon LCR enables utility-scale solar developers to reduce overall project greenhouse gas emissions by up to 32%, presenting a compelling and practical pathway to deeper decarbonization. Looking further ahead, the increasing adoption of EAF steel production opens the door to green steel in solar projects. Strategic partnerships between solar manufacturers and emerging green steel producers could therefore unlock a fully sustainable, locally anchored supply chain.

Cost and the Future

Raising the bar on sustainable materials and processes inevitably brings added complexity and cost. Similarly, local production is rarely, at least initially, the lowest-cost option. Over time, however, experience, scale, and the learning curve that has long benefited the solar industry can drive costs down. Encouragingly, a future in which local, sustainable production is also cost-competitive is well within reach.

There is little doubt that the solar industry is entering a new era – one defined by both tremendous opportunity and shared responsibility to both communities and the environment. A localized supply chain with sustainability at its core offers a clear path forward: enabling decarbonization that is cost-effective, equitable, and as environmentally responsible as possible.

About the Author
Yves Figuerola is SVP of Supply Chain and Sustainability at Nextpower. With over 15 years of experience in strategic sourcing, logistics, and operations leadership across multiple continents,
he specializes in building resilient, cost-efficient supply chains for large-scale solar manufacturing. Yves holds a Master of Science in Industrial & Mechanical Engineering from Arts et Métiers ParisTech and a Master of Science in Industrial Organisation & Supply Management from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.

V2H: Vehicle-to-Home Bi-Directional Charging

Sunshine Urbaniak — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:27:51 +0000

As the solar and energy storage industries continue to evolve, new technologies are reshaping how homeowners generate, store, and utilize electricity. One of the most promising yet still unfamiliar solutions is vehicle-to-home (V2H), an idea that has existed for over a decade but is only now becoming practical.

Electrical Vehicle (EV) adoption in the United States has grown rapidly. EVs reached more than 1.2 million sales in 2024, and represented about 7.5% of light-duty vehicle sales in the second quarter of 2025, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).¹

According to a recent Edmunds article,² used EVs are selling faster than used internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, at approximately 34 days to sell, compared with used ICE automobiles, which are averaging 43 days.

However, now that the U.S. government is no longer providing tax incentives, the number of new EV sales is already declining in 2026 (though there is no sign of decline in other countries).

As EV battery capacities increase, many homeowners are beginning to see their vehicles not only as transportation, but also as a potentially substantial backup power resource.

Before looking at how V2H works, I will briefly clarify the different types of electric vehicles:

Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) run entirely on electricity and are charged by the grid or a solar-powered home system.
Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) combine a gasoline engine with a smaller battery that is charged internally, either by regenerative braking or the alternator.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are a mix of both BEV and HEV and have larger batteries than the HEV, and can also be charged from an external source.

Almost in parallel with EV growth, more homeowners are installing rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems. One study found that roughly one in four EV owners also own solar,³ which is a natural pairing, since both technologies allow households to reduce emissions, cost, and gain greater energy independence.

How Does Vehicle-to-Home Actually Work?

Vehicle-to-home relies on bidirectional charging, as opposed to a typical EV charging setup, in which electricity flows only one way, from the home or grid into the vehicle.

A bidirectional charger, however, allows electricity to move in either direction. When needed, or also when electricity rates are high, the EV battery can discharge energy back into the home or back to the grid to be sold.

Several major automakers now support or plan to support bidirectional capability in the U.S. market. These include GM, with several EV models such as Silverado, Equinox, Bolt, Hummer, and Cadillac; Ford with the F150 Lightning, Tesla with the Cybertruck, Hyundai with their IONIQ family, and many others. There will also soon be ways to retrofit existing EVs for this purpose.

The functionality depends not only on the vehicle, but also on the charger, inverter, and home electrical configuration. In all cases, the home must include means to safely isolate the house from the utility grid during backup operation, so as not to harm linemen during an outage. Here’s how it works: in normal grid operation, the EV is charged via the grid. In an outage, the microgrid interconnection device (MID) switches to backup mode, powering only what is in the backup section (the homeowner can choose how much of the house needs to be backed up). The dark start battery (DSB) powers the components to keep communication, while waiting for the EV to plug in and the customer to initiate the backup mode.

Put simply, the EV battery serves as a temporary home power source, similar to a stationary home battery. Because EV batteries are often much larger than typical residential storage systems, one fully charged vehicle can supply a home for many hours, sometimes even multiple days, depending on usage and the support of additional sources such as a rooftop solar system.

There is also another advantage: using the battery to sell electricity back to the grid. Homeowners who live in a region where the utility charges time-of-use (TOU) prices, the homeowner can fill up at night when there is less demand for electricity, or in some places, such as California, where there is an abundance of solar keeping prices down, and then send (and sell) power back to the grid when demand is high and more expensive.

Why V2H Matters for Resilience

Power outages are becoming more frequent in many parts of the country due to severe storms, grid congestion, and wildfire-related shutoffs. Nationally, the average outage lasts about 11 hours,⁴ although the duration can be much higher in certain states and during extreme weather events.

There are states such as South Carolina where the average duration of interruption is greater than 50 hours, and the number of interruptions is close to two and a half days.

Traditionally, homeowners seeking backup power have relied on diesel or gasoline generators. More recently, stationary lithium-ion storage systems alone or paired with rooftop solar have become popular. V2H adds a new option: using the battery you already drive.

For homeowners who already own an EV, V2H could:

reduce or eliminate the need for generators
provide quiet, clean backup power
complement rooftop solar
improve household energy independence

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Average annual total electric power interruptions by state (2024). retrieved from EIA,In Brief Analysis: Hurricanes in 2024 led to the most hours without power in the United States in 10 years; https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=66744, January 5, 2026. © eia

And because EV batteries range widely in size, from about 60 kWh in many BEVs to even higher capacities in some models, they can store significantly more energy than the average stationary home battery. Also, of course, it does not have to be fixed to one place. If the battery runs low, the homeowner has the option to drive to a nearby functioning supercharger, leaving the house without power for only a short time.

Additionally, and from an emissions standpoint, battery-electric vehicles produce roughly 70–80% fewer lifetime CO₂ emissions than conventional gasoline vehicles, depending on the regional electricity mix. Plug-in hybrids typically provide moderate reductions as well. HEV is approximately 45% less, and a PHEV is 63% less.⁵

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Average Price: Electricity per Kilowatt-Hour in U.S. City Average [APU000072610], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU000072610, January 5, 2026. © FRED

Facts and Studies: What Research Says About Costs

Readers often ask: How much does owning an electric vehicle really cost, and how does V2H change the equation? When compared with fueling and maintaining a conventional gasoline vehicle, the difference is substantial. So, while EV drivers do buy more electricity, their total fuel, maintenance, and time spent is significantly lower.

A simple real-world comparison illustrates this further. One road test reported that an electric pickup truck traveled 400 miles using 204 kWh of stored energy.⁶ Using the U.S. average residential electricity rate of $0.188 per kWh,⁷ that full charge would cost: 204 kWh × $0.188/kWh = $38.35.

It is important to note that the average price of electricity has increased from 2020 to 2025 by approximately 40%, and is expected to continue to rise.

The gasoline version of the same truck has a 24-gallon tank. At an average retail gasoline price of $3.2288 per gallon, filling the tank would cost $77.47.

There are additional cost savings associated with electric cars. EVs do not need oil changes, and due to regenerative braking, where the motor slows the car, rather than brake pads only, EVs need many fewer brake replacements. Additionally, EV motors have between 20 and 50 moving parts, versus over 1,000 for ICE cars. With a lot fewer parts, there are a lot fewer, and costly, things to go wrong.

Here it can be seen that the average price of gas has increased from 2020 to 2025 by approximately 75%.

A recent peer-reviewed study examining EV ownership over a 15-year vehicle lifetime shows that Vehicle-to-home charging can cut costs and greenhouse gas emissions across the USA. The study found that adding a battery-electric vehicle (BEV) increases the typical household electricity bill by about $6,300 over that period,⁹ but that is still significantly less than the cost of fuel for a regular gas vehicle.

When vehicle-to-home capability is added, the financial benefits expand. Research modeling V2H use across U.S. households suggests that using an EV battery to offset home electricity consumption, particularly during peak-rate periods or grid outages, can yield additional savings averaging about $3,800 over 15 years.¹⁰ These values do not take into consideration the potential savings from an outage (remember the last time you had an outage and had to throw away everything in the fridge and the freezer?)

In short:

EVs cost less to fuel than gasoline vehicles
EV charging increases household electricity use, but at a net savings
V2H adds an additional layer of value by reducing grid electricity purchases
Time of Use (TOU) also allows the consumer to “fill up” when rates are low and sell back when rates are high

And when paired with rooftop solar, V2H allows households to store excess daytime generation for later use, improving self-consumption and resilience.

Opportunities and Areas for Improvement

Think back to the size of PV modules years ago and how they have lately improved in wattage and footprint. What about how heavy lithium-ion energy storage systems used to be? Believe me when I say they were very heavy, and I hope my chiropractor doesn’t read this!

Vehicle-to-home capability is a promising technology, and several major automakers have now embraced it. This is good news for both consumers and the renewable energy industry.

When V2H is paired with rooftop solar, and optionally with stationary battery storage, homeowners gain more control over both their energy costs and their resilience during outages.

Additionally, as the technology becomes more common, there are several important opportunities for even more improvement.

Broader Access Across Vehicle Models

Today, V2H capability is more often limited to higher-priced, premium-trim EVs. Expanding this functionality across all EV segments, including mid-market models, would help ensure that energy resilience is not restricted only to higher-income buyers. Affordability remains a key factor in EV adoption, and widespread V2H deployment will depend on inclusive pricing strategies.

Enabling Flexible Self-Consumption

Another opportunity lies in enabling EV batteries to support household electricity needs during normal operation, not only during outages. For example, a home with rooftop solar could charge an EV during the day and then use that stored energy in the evening, when rates are higher, and the vehicle is available.

In a household with two EVs, where each car is only in use part of the time, a smart energy-management system could draw stored solar energy from whichever vehicle is available. This would:

improve renewable-energy utilization
reduce reliance on the grid during peak periods
potentially lower the size and cost of stationary energy storage systems (ESS)

Open Standards and Interoperability

Today, some V2H systems are closely tied to proprietary home-energy ecosystems. For homeowners with a solar installation, retrofitting a brand-specific V2H product can add cost and complexity.

Allowing EVs and chargers from different manufacturers to communicate and interact at the bidirectional level would:

allow V2H systems to integrate with existing PV installations
reduce hardware compatibility barriers
give consumers greater freedom of choice
lower system costs over time

This approach treats the EV more like a universal “battery on wheels,” rather than a product locked inside a single ecosystem.

Real-World Example

Imagine a household with two EVs. A severe storm is forecast, and nearby family members, who already have rooftop solar, lack backup storage. With interoperable V2H systems, the homeowner could temporarily connect one vehicle to power the home during an extended outage and lend the second vehicle to the other home.

This type of clean, mobile backup could avoid the need for a fossil fuel generator or the cost of installing a stationary ESS with smaller capacity — potentially saving $10,000 or more in hardware and installation.

Giving consumers that flexibility allows the technology, as well as the market supporting it, to grow naturally.

Economic Factors Shaping the Future of V2H and EV Adoption

Economic policy plays a central role in how quickly new energy technologies are adopted. Recent federal tax credits for EV purchases in the U.S. helped accelerate market growth, but their expiration in 2025 may signal a new phase, one focused on affordability and cost reduction rather than incentive-driven demand.

In theory, tax credits can stimulate technology adoption, and with that, research into technology improvements. However, credits may also allow manufacturers to maintain higher pricing, as part of the purchase cost is absorbed by public support.

When incentives decline, market competition often shifts toward lowering production costs and expanding access. This dynamic may help explain why several major automakers are now refocusing on lower-cost EVs, hybrids, and plug-in hybrid models.

These U.S. EV manufacturers that provide V2H (Ford, Tesla, Kia, GM) did not start with lower-cost EVs from the beginning, as other countries did.

Another factor influencing EV pricing is the tariff structure applied to imported components and materials. As economist Thomas Sowell notes in Basic Economics, tariffs tend to raise the final cost of consumer goods by shielding domestic producers from lower-priced competition.

Ultimately, these costs are borne by end users, including EV buyers. As the industry matures, tariffs and trade policy will continue to affect affordability and, thereby, adoption speed.

If you cannot compete, then allow other manufacturers to provide their products and learn from them.

What the Next Phase May Look Like

In the near term, smaller, lower-cost EVs equipped with V2H capability may represent an important bridge technology. This model is particularly well-suited to urban areas where daily driving distances are modest, charging access is common, and electricity costs are above the national average, particularly in places that have Time of Use prices.

In these settings, pairing a compact EV with rooftop PV and maybe also a modest stationary ESS can deliver meaningful economic and resilience benefits.

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) may also play a role. With battery capacities now ranging from roughly 10 kWh to as high as 70 kWh in some new global models, PHEVs can offer both electric-driving capability and long-range flexibility.

If V2H functionality becomes standard across PHEV offerings, households in regions with limited charging infrastructure could still benefit from bidirectional energy use.

Incentives Beyond Federal Policy

Even as federal EV purchase credits phase out, state and utility-level incentives remain active across much of the country.

For example:

Arizona Public Service offers programs such as EV Charging Assistant Rewards, which adjust charging schedules to align with renewable generation and grid needs, providing both sign-up and monthly participation credits.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency continues to provide rebates for qualified buyers of new or used all-electric vehicles.
Many utilities nationwide now offer off-peak charging rebates or TOU rate incentives, further lowering operating costs for EV owners.

These programs encourage smart-charging practices that align well with V2H, where vehicles are viewed not only as transportation assets but as flexible energy resources. This also allows utilities to study energy consumption for better forecasting of their power generation.

Looking Forward

As the EV and solar industries evolve, several questions will shape the next decade:

Will V2H become a standard feature across vehicle classes?
How quickly will open interoperability standards expand consumer choice?
Will the combination of EVs, rooftop solar, and smart charging reshape how households think about energy independence?

What seems increasingly clear is that vehicle-to-home capability strengthens the connection between transportation and clean energy, turning the EV into a cornerstone of resilient, distributed power.

Sources:

Building Brighter Futures:

Sunshine Urbaniak — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:01:24 +0000

A pioneering collaboration between UAB Sustainability and Huffman High School is giving students hands-on experience in solar technology while expanding Alabama’s model for resilient, off-grid communities.

Students at Huffman High School in Birmingham are building a solar-powered tiny home — a first-of-its-kind collaboration for the University of Alabama at Birmingham aimed at preparing teens for careers in construction and renewable energy. The tiny home will connect to the university’s Solar House microgrid.

The UAB Solar House itself began as a competition entry for the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2017 Solar Decathlon. Designed and constructed by Alabama college students to maximize energy efficiency in Alabama’s hot, humid climate without sacrificing comfort, livability, and style, the 1,000-square-foot home is powered by the sun.

After the competition, the house was moved back to UAB’s campus where it was “islanded,” meaning it was not tied to the city’s electrical grid. Instead, it houses its own remote microgrid for energy storage.

The partnership between UAB Sustainability and Huffman’s Academy of Architecture to build the tiny house is part of Phase 2 of the Solar House and Sustainable Community project, which received funding from EBSCO (“Elton Bryson Stephens, Company”) in 2019. The project’s goal is to expand the off-grid solar-powered community and to model resilient, self-sufficient, and regenerative communities for the Southeast.

According to Bambi Ingram, Chief Sustainability Officer at UAB and the lead for both this project and The UAB Solar House, “The UAB Solar House and Sustainable Community demonstrates the potential for resilient technology to reshape communities. By training high school and college students to do this work, we are empowering the next generation to create spaces that work for them.”

Through the partnership with Huffman’s Academy of Architecture, the project is providing critically important workforce development opportunities in Birmingham, where more than 25% of residents live in poverty. Huffman High School is the largest school in the Birmingham City Schools system, and serves a 98% minority student body.1, 2 Huffman’s students are learning practical skills that will pave the way for future success in fields like construction, solar installation, and electrical engineering.

According to their construction teacher Jacques Dean, ”Because of our partnership with the UAB Solar House, our students are learning to plan, design and install residential solar. That’s a valuable skill set and will make them even more competitive for jobs in the construction industry.”

Students in the Academy of Architecture program choose one of three pathways: Design and Preconstruction, Construction, or Maintenance and Operations. The academy opens the pathways to steady careers in countless fields, including drafting design, welding, electrical technology, heating, HVACR, carpentry, cabinetmaking, masonry, plumbing, and pipefitting. The program is affiliated with the National Academy Foundation (NAF), a leader in the movement to prepare young people for college and career success.

Bambi Ingram, Chief Sustainability Officer at UAB, says: ”We are looking forward to welcoming even more visitors to our community so that we can share our experience of what does and does not work in creating and managing off-grid projects. It’s an exciting collaborative venture that has the potential to be of great service to the region.”

Since 2021, the house has served as the center of UAB Sustainability’s Solar House and Sustainable Community project. It has functioned as a living lab and center of environmental education for residents of and visitors to Central Alabama. Countless K-12 groups, college classes, and local community groups and nonprofits have toured and used the space to engage in educational opportunities related to solar power, renewable energy,
and sustainability.

The Solar House and Sustainable Community is located at 1637 11th Ave S and is open to the general public for educational tours.

The tiny home is expected to be completed by March 2026 and integrated into the community by year’s end.

About the Author
David Kirby is a passionate environmentalist and sophomore BSW student at The University of Alabama at Birmingham. David works for UAB Sustainability as the coordinator of the UAB Solar House, which has participated as a site for the annual ASES National Solar Tour since 2021.